

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Warning that "tracking and targeting of consumers online have reached alarming levels," a coalition of 11 consumer and privacy advocacy organizations today sent a letter to Congress outlining the protections any online privacy legislation must include.
The coalition said that industry self-regulation has not provided meaningful consumer protection and stressed that legislation is needed.
"This tracking is an invasion of privacy... Consumers now rely on the Internet and other digital services for a wide variety of transactions," the groups wrote. "These include sensitive activities, such as health and financial matters. In these contexts, tracking people's every move online is not simply a matter of convenience or relevance. It presents serious risks to consumers' privacy, security and dignity."
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) chairman of the House Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, is expected to introduce online privacy legislation Tuesday. The coalition's letter was sent to all members of the House of Representatives.
The consumer and privacy groups noted that for the past four decades the foundation of U.S. privacy policies has been based on Fair Information Practices: collection limitation, data quality, purpose specification, use limitation, security safeguards, openness, individual participation, and accountability. They called on Congress to apply those principles in passing legislation to protect consumers online.
"Consumers need rights, and profiling should have limits. Behavioral tracking and targeting can be used to take advantage of vulnerable individuals, or to unfairly discriminate against people," the groups wrote. "The potential misuse of health or financial information is especially troubling. The assumptions that can be made about people based on behavioral tracking may have detrimental consequences for them. Online profiles may also be obtained by government agencies, private investigators, and others for purposes that go far beyond advertising."
The groups outlined the following principles and goals for any meaningful legislation to protect consumers' online privacy:
Principles for Shaping Legislation
* Robust Fair Information Practices are the key to legislation concerning online privacy.
* Notice and choice are inadequate to protect consumers.
* Transparency is not enough if consumers have no real understanding or control.
* Self-regulation for privacy will not protect consumers.
* Law enforcement access to personal data should require a warrant.
Specific Goals to Protect Consumers
* The privacy of individuals should be protected even if the information collected about them in behavioral tracking cannot be linked to their names, addresses, or other overt identifiers.
* As long as consumers can be distinguished based on IP addresses, cookies, or other characteristics, their privacy interests must be protected.
* The ability of websites and ad networks to collect or use behavioral data should be limited to 24 hours, after which affirmative consent (opt-in) should be required.
* Websites should not collect or use sensitive information for behavioral tracking or targeting. The FTC should be tasked with defining sensitive information, which must include data about health records, financial records, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, personal relationships, and political activity.
* Personal data should be obtained only by lawful and fair means and, unless unlawful or impossible, with the knowledge or consent of the individual.
* Personal and behavioral data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used.
* Websites should specify the purposes for which they collect both personal and behavioral data not later than the time of data collection. Websites should not disclose or use personal and behavioral data for purposes other than those specified in advance except: a) with the consent of the individual; or b) when required by law.
* Websites should be responsible for providing reasonable security safeguards for personal and behavioral data, including protection against unauthorized access, modification, disclosure and other risks.
* Websites should disclose their practices, uses, and policies for personal and behavioral data.
* An individual should have the right to: a) be told by a behavioral tracker whether the behavioral tracker has data relating to the individual; b) obtain a copy of the data within a reasonable time, at a reasonable charge, and in a form that is readily intelligible to a consumer; and c) correct the data or, if requested, have all the data removed from the behavior tracker's database within a week.
About the members of the coalition:
Center for Digital Democracy: The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) is dedicated to ensuring that the public interest is a fundamental part of the new digital communications landscape. URL: https://www.democraticmedia.org
Consumer Action: Consumer Action, founded in 1971, is a national non-profit education and advocacy organization committed to financial literacy and consumer protection. URL: https://www.consumer-action.org/
Consumer Federation of America: Since 1968, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has provided consumers a well-reasoned and articulate voice in decisions that affect their lives. URL: https://www.consumerfed.org
Consumers Union: Consumers Union is a nonprofit membership organization chartered in 1936 to provide consumers with information, education and counsel about goods, services, health, and personal finance. URL: https://www.consumersunion.org
Consumer Watchdog: Consumer Watchdog (formerly The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights) is a consumer group that has been fighting corrupt corporations and crooked politicians since 1985. URL: https://www.consumerwatchdog.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation: When freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. URL: https://www.eff.org
Privacy Lives: Published by Melissa Ngo, the Website chronicles and analyzes attacks on privacy and various defenses against them to show that privacy lives on, despite the onslaught. URL: https://www.privacylives.com
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse is a consumer organization with a two-part mission: To raise consumer awareness about privacy and to advocate for privacy rights in policy proceedings. URL: https://www.privacyrights.org
Privacy Times: Since 1981, Privacy Times has provided its readers with accurate reporting, objective analysis and thoughtful insight into the events that shape the ongoing debate over privacy and Freedom of Information. URL: https://www.privacytimes.com
U.S. Public Interest Research Group: The federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. URL: https://www.uspirg.org
The World Privacy Forum: WPF is focused on conducting in-depth research, analysis, and consumer education in the area of privacy. Areas of focus include health care, technology, and the financial sector. URL: https://www.worldprivacyforum.org
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
The on-paper value of the president's Dell stock holdings has soared potentially by millions since he told Americans to "go out and buy a Dell" earlier this month.
Just weeks after President Donald Trump urged Americans to "go out and buy a Dell" and months after he bought millions of dollars worth of stock in the company, the computer giant was awarded a $9.7 billion Pentagon contract.
The Department of Defense confirmed the contract with Dell Federal Systems, the government-focused arm of Dell Technologies, on Wednesday.
Euronews reported:
As part of the Core Enterprise Technology Agreement (CETA), a Pentagon-wide Microsoft licensing and software procurement framework, the company will provide and manage Microsoft software licences, cloud subscriptions and on-premises software licensing across the US military, intelligence agencies and the US Coast Guard.
The contract would have raised scrutiny regardless, given the Dell family’s proximity to Trump in his second term. CEO Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, have pledged $6.25 billion to help fund the so-called “Trump accounts” that were part of the president's 2025 mega budget legislation, a policy that critics have described as a tax shelter for the wealthy.
This tied the Dell family fortune to Trump's political agenda. In recent months, he's also hitched it to his own personal wealth.
Follow this:First, Trump quietly buys up to $5 million of Dell stock.Then, he urges his followers to “go out and buy a Dell.”Today, his Pentagon awards a $9.7 billion deal to Dell. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
[image or embed]
— Bill Grueskin (@bgrueskin.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 7:45 PM
During his frenetic burst of stock trading in the first three months of the year, Trump purchased between $1 million and $5 million in Dell stock on February 10, according to financial disclosure forms, when the stock traded at $126 per share.
Months later, at a Mother's Day event on May 8, he publicly shilled for the company's products—a possible violation of White House ethics policy—and lavished praise upon the Dell family:
They've done such a job, such a job on that. They put up a lot of money, too [for Trump accounts]. Put up $6.25 billion. That's somebody and he started making computers on his bed in college and selling them because they were better than other computers.
And he just—I said, "How did you do that?" He said, "Well, I did it and I just never stopped." He just kept going.
So, go out and buy a Dell, they're great.
After the president's remarks, the value of Dell stocks surged by 14.6% to an all-time high of just under $264 before settling at just over $260 by the end of the day.
The announcement of the lucrative new Pentagon deal on Wednesday has caused the stock’s value to soar, reaching nearly $318 per share as of Thursday morning. The value was $305 per share before the announcement.
In total, the share price of Dell stock has climbed by about 155% since Trump bought it back in Feburary. Depending on how much of it he owns, that means he could have unrealized gains of between $1.55 million to $7.74 million. About 47% of those unrealized gains would have come just in the last month since he used the White House to boost Dell stock.
Acting US Navy Chief Information Officer Barry Tanner has insisted that there was no playing favorites when Dell was selected for the contract.
But Trump, who has increased his net worth by an eye-popping $3 billion since retaking office last year, according to the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has regularly faced accusations of lavish self-dealing.
In fact, a ProPublica report out on Thursday found that his White House adviser, Peter Navarro, personally intervened to push the Pentagon to give a $620 million loan to a startup linked to Donald Trump, Jr., out of dozens of companies that were under consideration.
Dell is also far from the first company to receive a Trump administration contract or other beneficial action after Trump purchased their stock. Earlier this month, NOTUS reported that Trump had bought shares in companies, including Palantir, Axon, and AMD, mere weeks before they were granted government contracts or regulatory relief.
Tommy Vietor, a National Security Council staffer under former President Barack Obama and now the host of the liberal Pod Save America podcast, said on social media that the Dell contract was an example of how “every day there’s another example of insider trading and corruption by Trump himself.”
Noting that Trump’s personal profit from the presidency far exceeds that of anyone else who has held the office, Tim Miller, a journalist and commentator at The Bulwark, said that a contract with such an obvious conflict of interest would be a “front-page story and weekslong scandal for anyone other than Trump.”
The president's eldest son had taken a stake in the rare-earth magnet firm three months before the loan was announced.
Three months after Donald Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm took a stake in a small North Carolina rare-earth magnet firm, a Pentagon department tasked with boosting rare-earth manufacturing for national defense purposes expedited a request for a loan worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the company—a transaction that one government ethics expert said at the time gave the appearance of "conflicts of interest."
On Thursday, new details of how the $620 million loan was secured were reported by ProPublica—and only added to concerns that the money was given to Vulcan Elements last year to benefit its new investor, President Donald Trump's eldest son.
According to ProPublica, although Trump Jr., the Pentagon, and Vulcan Elements said Trump Jr. was not involved in the loan deal and the company did not benefit from political favoritism, his close friend—White House trade and manufacturing counselor Peter Navarro—personally made the call to the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Capital last fall, asking them to quickly approve the loan.
The message to staffers in the office at the time was: "The call came from the White House: We have to get this done," one Pentagon employee told ProPublica.
Vetting of companies that the department is considering for funding usually takes months, but the staff "worked late nights and with little sleep to get the loan through in a matter of weeks," the investigative outlet reported.
The $620 million loan dramatically increased Vulcan's valuation, which was estimated to be about $200 million around the time that 1789 Capital, Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm, invested.
Three months after the company took a stake, Vulcan was valued at an estimated $2 billion.
"While your family pays higher prices, companies connected to the Trump family get giant government contracts," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in response to the new reporting. "Congress must investigate: Is this corruption at the highest level? We need answers NOW."
ProPublica also reported that a week before the Vulcan loan was made public, Trump Jr. had Navarro as a guest on his streaming show, "Triggered with Don Jr.," and urged his nearly 2 million subscribers to purchase Navarro's book.
The outlet noted that Trump and his family have been accused of corruption and self-dealing numerous times; a drone parts manufacturer that Trump Jr. owns a stake in is also being considered for a Pentagon loan, and the family has added billions of dollars to their fortunes through World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency firm founded by the president's two eldest sons.
"The Vulcan loan represents the first time the awarding of a contract from a federal agency has been directly linked to White House intervention," reported ProPublica.
A Pentagon spokesperson maintained in a statement to the outlet that "no company receives preferential treatment" and that "outside affiliations, investors, or political connections play absolutely no role in the department’s funding decisions.”
But progressive advocate Melanie D'Arrigo said the numerous financial benefits enjoyed by Trump's family during his presidency are not the result of "coincidence."
"It's all corruption," she said.
Democratic lawmakers earlier this year pushed to subpoena Trump Jr., seeking answers about how the company he was tied to secured its funding, but Republicans in the US House blocked the effort.
“If there is nothing to hide,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) in March, “then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital? This is the oligarchy on full display."
"Do any of these people have a working brain or understand how life works in the real world?" asked a retired air traffic controller.
US Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Thursday reiterated his threat to remove Customs and Border Protection agents from airports at so-called "sanctuary cities" that bar local police from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement operations.
During a Fox News interview, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked Mullin whether this plan would essentially halt all international flights to major US airports in travel hubs such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York.
Mullin responded by saying DHS wasn't "going to halt the flights," but rather "won't be able to process them because we won't have officers there."
The DHS secretary said that the CBP officers needed to be sent to protect DHS employees at the Delaney Hall migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey, which has been targeted in recent days by protesters demanding humane treatment of immigrants.
"If things don't change, we're going to have to make this step pretty quick," Mullin emphasized. "I'm not going to put my employees and my [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents at risk going to and from this [facility]."
Markwayne Mullin: "If CBP isn't there processing international flights, then those individuals when the airlines land won't be permitted into the United States. If things don't change, we're gonna have to make this step pretty quick." pic.twitter.com/flcAGL2TVG
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 28, 2026
Critics were quick to point out that Mullin's plan would lead to massive chaos at major international airports and would be a significant economic disruption at a time when Americans are already under financial pressure from the rising price of food and energy.
"This would be deliberately stabbing the US economy in the back," argued Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "It would cause enormous economic damage and disrupt air travel nationwide, as airlines would be forced to cancel flights en masse. That he’s even contemplating this publicly is a sign of madness."
Minneapolis-based attorney Will Stancil questioned whether Mullin had fully gamed out how his plan would play out politically for his boss, President Donald Trump, whom polls show is historically unpopular.
"If I’m sitting at 35% approval," Stancil mused, "the thing I definitely want to do is to cause apocalyptic levels of chaos at all of America’s largest airports."
Retired air traffic controller Vivian Lumbard similarly marveled at the self-destructive consequences that would come from enacting Mullin's plan.
"If customs isn't there processing international flights, US citizens won't be permitted to re-enter the United States either," she wrote. "Do any of these people have a working brain or understand how life works in the real world?"
Mullin's threats appear to be more than bluster, however. The Atlantic reported last week that the DHS chief recently "convened a small group of airline and travel-industry executives at DHS headquarters in Washington and told them he may reduce [CBP] staffing at major airports that serve sanctuary jurisdictions," including airports in New York, Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon.